The central legal point established is the assessment of just and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering various factors such as future income, consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the original claimants challenging the judgement and award dated 09/05/2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Patan in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.5640 of 2002, wherein claim petition filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- was awarded with running interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. In relation to negligence, tribunal has held driver of truck No.RJ-27-G-2283 as sole negligent for occurrence of the accident.

2. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under:

2.1. On 11/09/1998, Sodha Savaisinh Chamansinh was standing on kachha road of Highway, near Sabdalpura Taluka: Radhanpur, District: Patan, where he was working as security guard. At that time, truck bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-2283 came in rash and negligent manner from Radhanpur side and dashed with Savaisinh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), for which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. For the said accident, a FIR - Exh.27 was lodged and panchnama - Exh.28 was drawn. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was case of the original claimants that accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of truck No.RJ-27-G-2283, The deceased was working as security guard at Santalpur Clay Pvt. Ltd. at Village: Santalpur and was earning monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-.

Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issues respondent appeared and filed its written statement. Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decided the issue of negligence in favour of the original claimants by holding driver of the truck, sole negligent for the accident. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- under different heads, as under :

3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement.

4. Heard Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.2-insurance company. Since the insurance company has not disputed the issuance of policy to the truck and liability not being denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding this appeal. Record and proceedings of the case is secured. This appeal has been disposed of, keeping in mind that the deceased died at the young age, who was sole earning member of his family.

5. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not awarding compensation to the original claimants towards future prospective income. He submitted that as the deceased was aged between 30 to 35 years, the original claimants would be entitled to 40% rise towards future prospective income. As the deceased was survived by 6 dependents (mother died during the pendency of the claim petition), 1/5th ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. He further submitted that considering age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of 13.

In relation to consortium, he submitted that as the deceased was survived by spouse and 5 minor children, original claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- to each dependent as consortium. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance